19
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Sequential or alternating administration of docetaxel (Taxotere®) combined with FEC in metastatic breast cancer: a randomised phase II trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The aim of this study, using a Fleming single-stage design, was to explore the efficacy and safety of Taxotere® 100 mg m −2 docetaxel and FEC 75 cyclophosphamide 500 mg m −2, fluorouracil 500 mg m −2 and epirubicin 75 mg m −2, in alternating and sequential schedules for the first-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer. One hundred and thirty-six women were randomly allocated, to one of three treatment regimens: DTX 100 plus FEC 75, alternated for eight courses (ALT); four courses of DTX 100 followed by four courses of FEC 75 (SEQ T); or four courses of FEC 75 followed by four courses of DTX 100 (SEQ F). One hundred and thirty-one women were evaluable for tumour response. Although the treatment outcome was equivalent in the two sequential arms and the alternating regimen ( P=0.110, not significant), the response rate was less encouraging in the SEQ F arm (52.3%) than in the other two arms (71.1% for ALT and 70.5% for SEQ T), in which docetaxel was administered first. Time to progression was similar in the ALT, SEQ T and SEQ F arms (9.5, 9.3 and 10.4 months respectively). Grade 3–4 neutropenia was observed in nearly all patients; febrile neutropenia occurred in 9% (ALT), 16% (SEQ T) and 2% (SEQ F) of patients. Few patients (⩽9%) developed grade 3–4 non-haematological toxicities. Relative dose intensity was 97–99% for all regimens. All treatment regimens were active and well tolerated.

          British Journal of Cancer (2002) 86, 692–697. DOI: 10.1038/sj/bjc/6600165 www.bjcancer.com

          © 2002 Cancer Research UK

          Related collections

          Most cited references27

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          One-sample multiple testing procedure for phase II clinical trials.

          T Fleming (1982)
          Commonly, the central objective of Phase II clinical trials is the assessment of the antitumor 'therapeutic efficacy' of a specific treatment regimen. It is of interest to formulate test procedures which can be employed in these trials to decide whether or not this therapeutic efficacy warrants further investigation. For ethical reasons, these procedures should allow for early termination if initial results are extreme. In this paper, a one-sample multiple testing procedure is proposed which employs the standard single-stage test procedure at the last test, and which both allows for early termination and essentially preserves the size, power and simplicity of the single-stage procedure.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Prospective randomized trial of docetaxel versus doxorubicin in patients with metastatic breast cancer.

            This phase III study compared docetaxel and doxorubicin in patients with metastatic breast cancer who had received previous alkylating agent-containing chemotherapy. Patients were randomized to receive an intravenous infusion of docetaxel 100 mg/m(2) or doxorubicin 75 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks for a maximum of seven treatment cycles. A total of 326 patients were randomized, 165 to receive doxorubicin and 161 to receive docetaxel. Overall, docetaxel produced a significantly higher rate of objective response than did doxorubicin (47.8% v 33.3%; P =.008). Docetaxel was also significantly more active than doxorubicin in patients with negative prognostic factors, such as visceral metastases (objective response, 46% v 29%) and resistance to prior chemotherapy (47% v 25%). Median time to progression was longer in the docetaxel group (26 weeks v 21 weeks; difference not significant). Median overall survival was similar in the two groups (docetaxel, 15 months; doxorubicin, 14 months). There was one death due to infection in each group, and an additional four deaths due to cardiotoxicity in the doxorubicin group. Although neutropenia was similar in both groups, febrile neutropenia and severe infection occurred more frequently in the doxorubicin group. For severe nonhematologic toxicity, the incidences of cardiac toxicity, nausea, vomiting, and stomatitis were higher among patients receiving doxorubicin, whereas diarrhea, neuropathy, fluid retention, and skin and nail changes were higher among patients receiving docetaxel. The observed differences in activity and toxicity profiles provide a basis for therapy choice and confirms the rationale for combination studies in early breast cancer.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Cytotoxic and hormonal treatment for metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review of published randomized trials involving 31,510 women.

              A systematic review of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) was undertaken to assess the effectiveness of medical treatment for metastatic breast cancer. RCTs published between 1975 and 1997 have been classified according to 12 therapeutic comparisons: (1) polychemotherapy (PCHT) agents versus single agent; (2) PCHT regimens with anthracycline versus PCHT without anthracycline; (3) other PCHT versus cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF); (4) chemotherapy (CHT) with epirubicin versus CHT with doxorubicin; (5) CHT versus same CHT delivered with less intensive schedules; (6) other endocrine therapy (OET) versus tamoxifen; (7) OET plus tamoxifen versus tamoxifen alone; (8) OET versus medroxyprogesterone; (9) OET versus aromatase inhibitors; (10) OET versus megestrol; (11) endocrine therapy (ET) versus same ET at lower doses; and (12) CHT plus ET versus CHT. Tumor response rates, mortality hazards ratio (HR) and frequency of severe side effects were the outcome measures. A total of 189 eligible trials (31,510 patients) were identified. All provided response rates and 133 (70%) data or survival curves needed for calculation of the HR. In eight of 12 comparisons, statistically significant differences for response emerged (1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12); all but no. 8 favored the first term of the comparison. Overall survival analysis showed better results of (a) PCHT versus single-agent CHT (HR=0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 0.90); (b) CHT with doxorubicin versus CHT with epirubicin (HR=1.13; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.27); (c) CHT versus the same CHT delivered with less intensive schedules (HR=0.90; 95% CI, 0.83 to 0.97); (d) ET versus the same ET at lower doses (HR=0.86; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.97). Quality of life was measured in only 2,995 of 31,510 patients (9.5%). Despite some evidence of effectiveness of specific regimens, the relevance of these findings is limited by the modest survival benefit and the lack of evaluation of the quality-of-life impact of these treatments.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Br J Cancer
                British Journal of Cancer
                Nature Publishing Group
                0007-0920
                1532-1827
                04 March 2002
                : 86
                : 5
                : 692-697
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Institut Gustave Roussy, 39-53 rue Camille Desmoulins, 94805 Villejuif, France
                [2 ]Centre René Huguenin, 35 rue Dailly, 92210 St Cloud, France
                [3 ]Centre A Lacassagne, 33 avenue de Valombrose, 06189 Nice Cedex 02, France
                [4 ]Hôpital Bretonneau, 2 bld Tonnellé, 37044 Tours Cedex 1, France
                [5 ]CHU Dupuytren, 2 avenue Martin Luther King, 87042 Limoges, France
                [6 ]Laboratoire Aventis, 46 Quai de la Rapée, 75601 Paris Cedex 12, France
                [7 ]Centre Jean Godinot, 1 avenue du Général Koenig BP 171, 51056 Reims Cedex, France
                Author notes
                [* ]Author for correspondence: spielman@ 123456igr.fr
                Article
                6600165
                10.1038/sj.bjc.6600165
                2375306
                11875727
                66d0bb40-a0a0-4e23-a812-14177851e7be
                Copyright 2002, Cancer Research UK
                History
                : 24 October 2001
                : 28 December 2001
                Categories
                Clinical

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                sequential therapy,metastatic breast cancer,alternating therapy,fec,docetaxel

                Comments

                Comment on this article